Do floor standing speakers even make sense when used with a sub?

[killdozzer]

I think imaging and dispersion have more to do with sound “size”. The tiny Klipsch R-14m speakers (when paired with a sub) in my bedroom project a huge, outside of the speaker sound stage compared to the similarly sized Polk OWM3s. So long as you cross them over at 70hz, they can dish out about 104dB @8’ before they start complaining according to my measurements. (I left the room and set the spl meter to record LC Fmax, since above 90dB was unbearable).

The other thing you might be perceiving is dynamic range. Most small direct radiating monitors can’t reproduce dynamics in the same way big speakers can. I have yet to hear a small two way bookshelf maintain its composure above 85dB. One reason I’m a fan of horns and/or really big speakers. No replacement for displacement is definitely correct.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As long as you don't mind me disagreeing. What you say about Klipsch sounds like a commercial. I heard some Klipsch when I was shopping for speakers in a 2.1 system, I wasn't impressed and found LS50 (without sub) to have bigger sound. Although I cant's say which model Klipsch they were, but they did have horns. I grant you; perhaps I just didn't hear their best or they weren't set properly.

I think dynamic range is somewhat loosely thrown around the premises. Could we agree on what it is - isn't that the term that should cover the range from the most quiet to loudest parts of a recording and the range from the deepest to highest frequency? If so, I don't see how size relates (as in the impression of the size of the sound stage). As I said, turning the volume up doesn't directly affect this sense of size.

Some of the speakers I listened are of the same assembly (driver array) as smaller bookshelves, so direct radiating is still not clear to me. "Big sounding" speakers were: point source Tannoys, electrostatic Martin Logan and to slightly lesser extent B&W 703 S2, also horn loaded (both for mids and highs) Avantgarde Acoustics and ATC which are also used as monitors in a huge number of highly respected studios. So you see, some stats and horns and then some coaxial and simple two-way speakers. They all had a feeling of large sound stage.

Out of these the Tannoys are probably the most significant being two-way point source and the most obvious difference being that the midrange/woofer is much, much bigger in surface (Cheviot at 12" and Sterling at 10"). Of course there's the size of the box.

For now, I still think it's your last sentence.

 

[killdozzer]

And what in god's name do you get by giving 25k for these:


Magico Q1. How much can they do with a conventional architecture?

 

[Hetfield]

And what in god's name do you get by giving 25k for these:
View attachment 22831

Magico Q1. How much can they do with a conventional architecture?

For 25K it better come with a date with Jennifer Lawrence or it's a total ripoff. Talk about the law of diminishing returns. People are nuts with this stuff.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[yepimonfire]

As long as you don't mind me disagreeing. What you say about Klipsch sounds like a commercial. I heard some Klipsch when I was shopping for speakers in a 2.1 system, I wasn't impressed and found LS50 (without sub) to have bigger sound. Although I cant's say which model Klipsch they were, but they did have horns. I grant you; perhaps I just didn't hear their best or they weren't set properly.

I think dynamic range is somewhat loosely thrown around the premises. Could we agree on what it is - isn't that the term that should cover the range from the most quiet to loudest parts of a recording and the range from the deepest to highest frequency? If so, I don't see how size relates (as in the impression of the size of the sound stage). As I said, turning the volume up doesn't directly affect this sense of size.

Some of the speakers I listened are of the same assembly (driver array) as smaller bookshelves, so direct radiating is still not clear to me. "Big sounding" speakers were: point source Tannoys, electrostatic Martin Logan and to slightly lesser extent B&W 703 S2, also horn loaded (both for mids and highs) Avantgarde Acoustics and ATC which are also used as monitors in a huge number of highly respected studios. So you see, some stats and horns and then some coaxial and simple two-way speakers. They all had a feeling of large sound stage.

Out of these the Tannoys are probably the most significant being two-way point source and the most obvious difference being that the midrange/woofer is much, much bigger in surface (Cheviot at 12" and Sterling at 10"). Of course there's the size of the box.

For now, I still think it's your last sentence.

Not a commercial lol. I’m just impressed with them and have found performance from them in dynamics, neutrality, and wide dispersion that I haven’t found with other speakers similarly priced.

To me, good dynamics consist of being able to crank a speaker up to realistic volumes, without distortion or squashing of the loudest peaks. Or attended many live orchestra performances, a speaker with high dynamic range should be able to play back a classical recording, at live volume levels, with the ability to clearly and authoritatively reproduce the loudest crash of a cymbal or beat of a drum, and the quietest passages, in the same way a real performance sounds, without the loudest parts straining or “limiting”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[killdozzer]

Not a commercial lol. I’m just impressed with them and have found performance from them in dynamics, neutrality, and wide dispersion that I haven’t found with other speakers similarly priced.

To me, good dynamics consist of being able to crank a speaker up to realistic volumes, without distortion or squashing of the loudest peaks. Or attended many live orchestra performances, a speaker with high dynamic range should be able to play back a classical recording, at live volume levels, with the ability to clearly and authoritatively reproduce the loudest crash of a cymbal or beat of a drum, and the quietest passages, in the same way a real performance sounds, without the loudest parts straining or “limiting”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know it's not a commercial, I was just pulling your leg. After reading for like hundreds of small speaker that they sound bigger than they are, I simply started seeing this as normal. They probably don't sound one iota bigger than they are. Perhaps only if compared to what a 6 liter speaker could do in 70'. Today's speakers might seem bigger than they are, but it's the new standard, nothing more. They're exactly as big as a contemporary 6 liter speaker is.

And I haven't heard a small speaker being as big as a large speaker. Not yet.

What I'm trying to say is that I'm seriously starting to doubt that 4" mid will suffice. You can't fix or help/assist your mids with a sub. Get three 12" subs and you stull have 4" mids. And this is something I'll try to investigate a little bit. I'll try to listen to as much large mid driver bookshelves as I can. I have to see what's there.

I'm not completely sure about the dynamic range. Since you show a lot of interest for this topic, I'd really like you to hear LS50's when they're loud. They are suppose to be able to do everything you say; go loud, not distort, cover the highs and the lows and the loud and quite parts. But close your eyes, it's a small sound. I perceive it as beautiful, accurate, fast-paced with astonishing low end not the slightest fatiguing highs, but small sound.

So I'm guessing it's not the dynamic range. I still may be wrong. Perhaps the impression of the size of the sound stage goes under the dynamic range as well.

I'm really curious about how would a 2.2 music mainly, bookshelves system sound that has larger drivers. Subs 12" min. but perhaps 14" and a min. of 8" mids.

 

[Dale Doback]

Well, after setting my speakers to small, I figured maybe I wasted my money on towers, however, I'm learning that's not necessarily so.?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Well, after setting my speakers to small, I figured maybe I wasted my money on towers, however, I'm learning that's not necessarily so.?

I believe the message here is that much bigger speakers may have better midrange and upper bass than much smaller speakers - no replacement for displacement. Thus, you probably did not waste your money.

 

[killdozzer]

I believe the message here is that much bigger speakers may have better midrange and upper bass than much smaller speakers - no replacement for displacement. Thus, you probably did not waste your money.

And we're still wondering.

 

[Dale Doback]

I believe the message here is that much bigger speakers may have better midrange and upper bass than much smaller speakers - no replacement for displacement. Thus, you probably did not waste your money.

Well, I'll say one thing, I definitely like using a matching center tower as opposed to my center speaker, which I kept, in case I may need to use it in the future. I had to raise my 125" 2.35:1 screen a little higher, but, it doesn't bother me, it's worth it.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

So I'm guessing it's not the dynamic range.

Much bigger speakers can certainly have more dynamic range than much smaller speakers (85dB vs 120dB).

And perhaps this significant improvement in "dynamics" could help improve the "soundstage".

 

[Irvrobinson]

For 25K it better come with a date with Jennifer Lawrence or it's a total ripoff. Talk about the law of diminishing returns. People are nuts with this stuff.

All of the Magico speakers I've heard have sounded very good. Comparable to Revel products. That's unusual in these boutique speakers in my experience; many aren't very good. The Magicos are made from CNC-machined aluminum, which gives the entire product a jewelry-like appearance you can't get with wood cabinetry, and some people find them alluring. As I've pointed out before, if you're really wealthy, say $50M or $100M or more in investable assets (I know many people in this category), $25K is a nit. Your portfolio varies in value more than that in an hour when the markets are open. The spectrum of wealth in the world is greater than most people like to think about.

 

[Hetfield]

All of the Magico speakers I've heard have sounded very good. Comparable to Revel products. That's unusual in these boutique speakers in my experience; many aren't very good. The Magicos are made from CNC-machined aluminum, which gives the entire product a jewelry-like appearance you can't get with wood cabinetry, and some people find them alluring. As I've pointed out before, if you're really wealthy, say $50M or $100M or more in investable assets (I know many people in this category), $25K is a nit. Your portfolio varies in value more than that in an hour when the markets are open. The spectrum of wealth in the world is greater than most people like to think about.

If I were a millionaire I'd probably feel differently but I'm not. I don't know anyone in the position to even buy something like this. My pickup was 38 grand. These speakers are almost as much.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Well, I'll say one thing, I definitely like using a matching center tower as opposed to my center speaker, which I kept, in case I may need to use it in the future. I had to raise my 130" 2.35:1 screen a little higher, but, it doesn't bother me, it's worth it.

Yeah, I definitely believe in the "no replacement for displacement" mantra.

And I definitely believe that the center speaker should be just as awesome as the front main speakers.

 

[Dale Doback]

And I definitely believe that the center speaker should be just as awesome as the front main speakers.

Well, one thing I noticed, dialog is inconsistent from seat to seat with the 'center' speaker, but, makes sense; it has a vertical dispersion. Duh. Also, it makes sense to have all 3 speakers the same. Hopefully, I can keep the same setup when I move into my new home next year, if not, like I said, I just kept the center speaker in case I need it.

 

[yepimonfire]

I know it's not a commercial, I was just pulling your leg. After reading for like hundreds of small speaker that they sound bigger than they are, I simply started seeing this as normal. They probably don't sound one iota bigger than they are. Perhaps only if compared to what a 6 liter speaker could do in 70'. Today's speakers might seem bigger than they are, but it's the new standard, nothing more. They're exactly as big as a contemporary 6 liter speaker is.

And I haven't heard a small speaker being as big as a large speaker. Not yet.

What I'm trying to say is that I'm seriously starting to doubt that 4" mid will suffice. You can't fix or help/assist your mids with a sub. Get three 12" subs and you stull have 4" mids. And this is something I'll try to investigate a little bit. I'll try to listen to as much large mid driver bookshelves as I can. I have to see what's there.

I'm not completely sure about the dynamic range. Since you show a lot of interest for this topic, I'd really like you to hear LS50's when they're loud. They are suppose to be able to do everything you say; go loud, not distort, cover the highs and the lows and the loud and quite parts. But close your eyes, it's a small sound. I perceive it as beautiful, accurate, fast-paced with astonishing low end not the slightest fatiguing highs, but small sound.

So I'm guessing it's not the dynamic range. I still may be wrong. Perhaps the impression of the size of the sound stage goes under the dynamic range as well.

I'm really curious about how would a 2.2 music mainly, bookshelves system sound that has larger drivers. Subs 12" min. but perhaps 14" and a min. of 8" mids.

I agree. Once you start having -3dB points above 80hz, you start getting into territory where you’re asking a sub to play frequencies above what it was designed to do. The other issue, is that speakers that small generally have a good bit of distortion at anything other than low levels in small rooms, that said, woofer size isn’t always an indicator of ability to perform at high spl, an 8” pro woofer can have a sensitivity of 93dB or greater, and be able to reach 120dB @1m, while an 8” hifi woofer could be as low as 83dB, and go up in smoke at 120dB, not even considering distortion.

Materials have an effect too. A polypropylene woofer has inherently lossy damping, which causes movement that might otherwise be transformed into sound to be wasted as heat, while an aluminum cone of similar weight would be much more rigid, and therefore significantly less loss into the surrounding cone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[yepimonfire]

I know it's not a commercial, I was just pulling your leg. After reading for like hundreds of small speaker that they sound bigger than they are, I simply started seeing this as normal. They probably don't sound one iota bigger than they are. Perhaps only if compared to what a 6 liter speaker could do in 70'. Today's speakers might seem bigger than they are, but it's the new standard, nothing more. They're exactly as big as a contemporary 6 liter speaker is.

And I haven't heard a small speaker being as big as a large speaker. Not yet.

What I'm trying to say is that I'm seriously starting to doubt that 4" mid will suffice. You can't fix or help/assist your mids with a sub. Get three 12" subs and you stull have 4" mids. And this is something I'll try to investigate a little bit. I'll try to listen to as much large mid driver bookshelves as I can. I have to see what's there.

I'm not completely sure about the dynamic range. Since you show a lot of interest for this topic, I'd really like you to hear LS50's when they're loud. They are suppose to be able to do everything you say; go loud, not distort, cover the highs and the lows and the loud and quite parts. But close your eyes, it's a small sound. I perceive it as beautiful, accurate, fast-paced with astonishing low end not the slightest fatiguing highs, but small sound.

So I'm guessing it's not the dynamic range. I still may be wrong. Perhaps the impression of the size of the sound stage goes under the dynamic range as well.

I'm really curious about how would a 2.2 music mainly, bookshelves system sound that has larger drivers. Subs 12" min. but perhaps 14" and a min. of 8" mids.

the issue you start getting into with big drivers is a more restricted operating range in the upper midrange, for two reasons, the larger the surface area, the lower at which point it starts breaking up, and the larger the driver, the lower it starts beaming necessitating a low xover to the tweeter or a three way design. Only reason pro audio speakers, diy sound group speakers, and Klipsch get away with doing 2 ways is the use of horns, which allow low xover points without the tweeter destroying itself.

Really the best solution is a 3 way/4 way system with 8-10” midbass, a dedicated midrange, or horn loaded tweeter, and a really big sub. Cinemas use huge speakers and subs for a reason, obviously, they have to fill a much bigger area, but if you look at some of the serious HT rooms over on avsforum, you’ll see many of them using pro equipment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KEW]

Well, one thing I noticed, dialog is inconsistent from seat to seat with the 'center' speaker, but, makes sense; it has a vertical dispersion. Duh. Also, it makes sense to have all 3 speakers the same. Hopefully, I can keep the same setup when I move into my new home next year, if not, like I said, I just kept the center speaker in case I need it.

Which speakers are you talking about, because that can make a huge difference!
I am generally a fan of the Energy RC-10's which are a small BS speaker. However, as these speakers were being closed out, I decided to try a pair of the "matching" centers (which are 3-way speakers with the same size woofers). It has been too long to remember specifics, so all I can say is the centers sucked!

My point is different companies have different attitudes towards their centers. Energy clearly did not attempt to have a sound character close to the RC-10's. Perhaps they were matched to the towers, but I sincerely doubt it!

 

[Dale Doback]

Which speakers are you talking about, because that can make a huge difference!
I am generally a fan of the Energy RC-10's which are a small BS speaker. However, as these speakers were being closed out, I decided to try a pair of the "matching" centers (which are 3-way speakers with the same size woofers). It has been too long to remember specifics, so all I can say is the centers sucked!

My point is different companies have different attitudes towards their centers. Energy clearly did not attempt to have a sound character close to the RC-10's. Perhaps they were matched to the towers, but I sincerely doubt it!

I have the Elites all the way around. I really like them, especially for music. I didn't think the center speaker was as bad as some say on here, however, I definitely prefer towers across the front.

(I can't have a signature line until I've had 30 posts, )

 

[KEW]

I think imaging and dispersion have more to do with sound “size”. The tiny Klipsch R-14m speakers (when paired with a sub) in my bedroom project a huge, outside of the speaker sound stage compared to the similarly sized Polk OWM3s. So long as you cross them over at 70hz, they can dish out about 104dB @8’ before they start complaining according to my measurements. (I left the room and set the spl meter to record LC Fmax, since above 90dB was unbearable).

I'm not sure this is relevant to your post, but one of the biggest factors for imaging is how close the centers of the mid and tweet are. Thus, a 4" speaker will generally image better than a 6" speaker (assuming the designer recognized the benefit of mounting the drivers close). That is the reason that (despite required compromises to other aspects of the speaker design) KEF has a successful product with their concentric driver designs - they image like nothing else.

 

[killdozzer]

the issue you start getting into with big drivers is a more restricted operating range in the upper midrange, for two reasons, the larger the surface area, the lower at which point it starts breaking up, and the larger the driver, the lower it starts beaming necessitating a low xover to the tweeter or a three way design. Only reason pro audio speakers, diy sound group speakers, and Klipsch get away with doing 2 ways is the use of horns, which allow low xover points without the tweeter destroying itself.

Concerning the first paragraph - as soon as I scratch the surface it immediately goes over my head. I simply can not believe that Tannoy would choose to build 10" or 12" mid/woofer cone in to their costlier speakers and have all sorts of IMD and cone break up and beaming...

I was listening to some jazz session thru them and some Nils Lofgren - Live Acoustic.